EVISA Print | Glossary on | Contact EVISA | Sitemap | Home   
Search
 Advanced search
The establishment of EVISA is funded by the EU through the Fifth Framework Programme (G7RT- CT- 2002- 05112).


Supporters of EVISA includes:
Home ›› About Speciation ›› Speciation News

Peer reviewing as a quality check - Criticism

(12.08.2024)

Peer review is a process of quality check, subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years. Despite its broad implementation, there is also a continuous discussion about its effectiveness.

It is generally accepted that peer review cannot completely eliminate cases of fraud and the publication of low-quality papers, but the points of criticism are much wider:.

  1. Bias and Subjectivity: Reviewers may bring personal biases into their assessments, which can influence their evaluation of the research. This bias can be based on the author's reputation, the institution they are affiliated with, or the research topic itself.
  2. Inconsistency: The quality of peer reviews can vary significantly. Some reviewers provide detailed, constructive feedback, while others might offer only superficial or overly critical comments. This inconsistency can affect the fairness of the review process.
  3. Slow Process: The peer review process can be time-consuming, often taking months or even years, which can delay the publication of important findings. This is particularly problematic in fast-moving fields where timely dissemination of research is crucial.
  4. Lack of Accountability: Traditional peer review is typically anonymous, which can lead to a lack of accountability. Reviewers may provide harsh or unconstructive feedback without facing any consequences.
  5. Gatekeeping and Conservatism: Peer review can sometimes act as a gatekeeping mechanism that resists innovative or unconventional ideas. Reviewers may favour established methodologies or perspectives, potentially stifling scientific progress.
  6. Peer Review Cartels: There are concerns about "reviewer cartels," where groups of researchers agree to review each other's work favourably, leading to a potential conflict of interest and undermining the integrity of the review process.
  7. Reviewer Expertise: Reviewers may not always have the necessary expertise to evaluate a paper thoroughly, especially in interdisciplinary fields. This can result in important aspects of the research being overlooked or misunderstood.
  8. Mental Health Impact: The peer review process can be stressful for authors, particularly when faced with harsh criticism or rejection. This stress can impact the mental health of researchers, especially early-career academics.
  9. Rejection of High-Impact Work: Historically, some groundbreaking research has been initially rejected through peer review due to its unconventional nature, only to be recognized later as significant. This highlights the risk of important research being dismissed early on.
  10. Lack of Transparency: The process often lacks transparency, with authors sometimes unclear about why their work was rejected or what specific issues were identified by the reviewers.
  11. Lack of Implementation: Some people also suspect that journals which claim to have implemented peer review actually carry out very superficial assessments, or none at all.

These criticisms have led to calls for reforms in the peer review system, such as open peer review (where reviewers' identities are known), post-publication review, and greater training and accountability for reviewers. Nevertheless, peer review continues to be favoured despite all the criticism because it has ultimately proved its worth and shown that in most cases it can help improve the quality of publications.



Further information sources




Related Studies (newest first)

 David Adam, How to fix peer review, Nature, 644 (2025) 24-27. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-025-02457-2

 R.A.K. Richardson, S.S. Hong, J.A. Byrne, T. Stoeger, L.A. Nunes Amaral, The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 122/32 (2025) e2420092122. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2420092122

Anna Abalkina, René Aquarius, Elisabeth Bik, David Bimler, Dorothy Bishop, Jennifer Byrne, Guillaume Cabanac, Adam Day, Cyril Labbé & Nick Wise, ‘Stamp out paper mills’ — science sleuths on how to fight fake research, Nature, 637 (2025) 1047-1050. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-025-00212-1

P. Sebo, M. Sebo, Geographical Disparities in Research Misconduct: Analyzing Retraction Patterns by Country, J. Med. Internet Res.,  27 (2025) e65775. DOI: 10.2196/65775 PMID: 39808480

Andrew Grey, Alison Avenell, Andrew A. Klein, Jennifer A. Byrne, Peter Wilmshurst & Mark J. Bolland, How to improve assessments of publication integrity, Nature, 632 (2024) 26-28. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-02449-8

Holly Else, Multimillion-dollar trade in paper authorships alarms publishers, Nature, 613 (2023) 617-618. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-00062-9

L. O’Sullivan, L. Ma, P. Doran. An Overview of Post-Publication Peer Review.
Scholarly Assessment Reports, 3/1: 6 (2021) 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.26

J. Rigby, D. Cox, K. Julian, Journal peer review: a bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper’s revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation, Scientometrics, 114 (2018) 1087–1105. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2630-5

Matthew J. Michalska-Smith, Stefano Allesina, And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing, PLOS One, 12/6 (2017) e0178074. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178074

J.A. Teixeira da Silva, A. Al-Khatib, J. Dobránszki, Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior. Sci Eng Ethics. 23/4 (2017) 1213-26. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2.

Rachel Bruce, Anthony Chauvin, Ludovic Trinquart, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron, Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta analysis, BMC Medicine, 14 (2016) 85. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5

Wendi Arant Kapar, What's So Important about Peer Review ?, College & Research Libraries, 77/6 (2016) 678. DOI: 10.5860/crl.77.6.678

Jacalyn Kelly, Tara Sadeghieh, Khosrow Adeli, Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide, J. Int. Fed. Clin. Chem., 25/3 (2014) 227-242.  PMID: 27683470

Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, Blaise Cronin, Bias in Peer Review, J. Am. Soc. Info. Sci. Technol., 64/1 (2013) 2-17. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22784

John Bohannon, Who's Afraid of Peer Review?, Science, 342/6154 (2013) 60-65. DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60 

Lutz Boernmann, Scientific Peer Review, Ann. Rev. Info Sci. Technol., 45/1 (2011) 197-245. DOI: 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112

Richard Smith, Peer review: a flawed Process at the heart of science and journals, J.R. Soc. Med., 99/4 (2006) 178-182. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

Arthur G. Bedeian, The Manuscript Review Process - The Proper Roles of Athors, Referees, and Editors, J. Managm. Inquiry, 12/4 (2003) 331-338. DOI: 10.1177/1056492603258974

A.C. Justice, M.K. Cho, M.A. Winker, J.A. Berlin, D. Rennie, Does masking author identity improve peer review quality: a randomised controlled trial. Peer Investigators, JAMA, 280 (1998) 240-2. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.240

Stephen Lock, Does Editorial Peer Review Work ?, Ann. Intern. Med., 121/1 (1994) 60-61. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00012





Comments


Events
See the complete list of deadlines!
Winter Conference on Plasma Spectrochemistry
12.01.2026
Tucson, AZ
Gordon Research Seminar: Bioinorganic Chemistry
16.01.2026
Ventura, California, United States
Gordon Research Conference: Metals in Biology
18.01.2026
Ventura, California, United States
... more Events
News
What's new on EVISA's web site ?
The European Virtual Institute for Speciation Analysis: Promoting Speciation Analysis for More Than 22 Years – Still a Necessary Activity?
New selenium compounds found in edible mushrooms
Simultaneous Speciation Analysis of Iodine-, Gadolinium-, and Platinum-Based Pharmaceuticals by HILIC-ICP-MS and Its Application to Wastewaters
Overview of automation in speciation analysis
... more News




Imprint     Disclaimer

© 2003 - 2025 by European Virtual Institute for Speciation Analysis ( EVISA )